“A virtuous man cannot serve two masters”

“A virtuous man cannot serve two masters” is Zhang Fei’s severe judgment of Guan Yu when they meet again after Guan Yu has served Cao Cao. The saying turns a question of divided allegiance into a test of virtue, even as the scene reveals how easily loyalty can be misread when its circumstances are unknown.

The maxim in the reunion scene

When Zhang Fei finds the two women traveling with Cao Cao’s party, they explain that Guan Yu did not know where they or Xuande were. They had remained with Cao Cao, they say, and left as soon as he learned Xuande was at Runan. They also defend Cao Cao for protecting them on the journey. Zhang Fei answers that they have been deceived and insists that a virtuous person would rather die than be dishonored. He concludes that no virtuous man can serve two masters.

The maxim is not offered as an abstract reflection: it is a charge directed at Guan Yu, whose service to Cao Cao appears to Zhang Fei to contradict the brothers’ bond. Guan Yu protests that Zhang Fei is seriously misjudging him. Sun Qian clarifies the missing circumstance: Guan Yu has been searching for his brothers, and that search has brought him there. The exchange makes the saying’s severity part of the scene’s drama. A rule meant to affirm steadfast loyalty becomes an accusation before the facts are understood.

Loyalty and competing claims

The novel’s larger political landscape gives the maxim a wider resonance. As the Han order fragments, Liu Bei, Cao Cao, and Sun Quan emerge as leaders who carve kingdoms from the failing empire. The question of whom a worthy person may serve is therefore bound up with the struggle over who can claim authority, not only with private fidelity between sworn brothers.

Kong Ming’s counsel to Xuande makes this conflict explicit. He describes Cao Cao as controlling the emperor and attracting the allegiance of many nobles, while advising Xuande to regard Sun Quan as a potential ally and to focus on Jingzhou. Later, when Cao Pi takes the throne, Xuande initially recoils from the proposal that he become emperor, fearing that it would make him appear rebellious. Kong Ming counters that Cao Pi has usurped the Han and that Xuande, as a descendant of the House of Liu, has a duty to reclaim control. The language of loyalty thus becomes an argument over which master—and which political order—deserves service.

A principle tested by circumstance

The reunion does not settle the maxim by simply proving Guan Yu innocent of disloyalty. Instead, it shows that outward service can conceal a different allegiance: Guan Yu has been with Cao Cao, but his search for Xuande explains why he has come to meet his brothers. Zhang Fei’s certainty collides with the women’s gratitude and Guan Yu’s protest before Sun Qian supplies the decisive fact. The maxim retains its moral force, but the scene cautions that judging loyalty requires knowledge of the circumstances.

The book also presents political succession through rival appeals to virtue, popular will, lineage, and Heaven’s signs. Cao Pi’s accession is framed as an abdication modeled on the ancient precedent of Yao, while Xuande’s later claim is defended as continuity with the Han rather than rebellion against it. Against that background, Zhang Fei’s compact rule is more than a rebuke between brothers: it crystallizes the novel’s recurring problem of allegiance, the tension between service to a present ruler and fidelity to a prior bond or rightful cause.